My pops has this annoying catchphrase he picked up somewhere.
"Is it real or is it Memorex?"
Pops likes to pull out this gem when he's trying to make a point about whether something is dependable or whether someone can be trusted. He must have picked it up recently because I don't remember him saying it when I was a child.
He usually says it to remind me not to worry about stuff cause what's real will be real no matter what, and what's fake will come out in the wash.
I like that.
Folks will try to convince you of anything these days. Actually, folks have been pulling that routine since man appeared on the Earth. Trying to tell you not to trust your lying eyes, to ignore that gut feeling, to just trust them and their expertise.
Pushing Memorex likes it's crack.
I mean, it's like Lakers fans trying to argue that Kobe Bryant's elbow to the neck/chest of Ron Artest wasn't really dirty. Or certain white folks named after Norse gods trying to convince me that my feeble little mind has been warped by liberalism.
People will push all sorts of madness because they've convinced themselves that they alone know the secret to how the world works. And then get mad when you don't agree with them!
I'm not pretending that I'm not guilty of that oversight. Sometimes I can be pig-headed and blind, which is a horrible combination. But, I try my hardest to consider other viewpoints, to give conflicting information an honest review. Unfortunately, I meet folks everyday who don't have those same ideals, and it can make it hard to stick to my guns to treat folks right.
I guess I just needed to vent a little today. Talking to people about a variety of topics everyday makes me appreciate people who make reasoned, balanced arguments. Those people are a dying breed. More and more people are electing to live in their own created realities where they keep out inconvenient facts through a mixture of yelling and earplugs.
M.O.B.
Memorex over Brains.
Share
Pay Attention
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
16 comments:
lil' man,
Please... It's silly to think I get "mad" because you don't agree with me.
Remember, you tapped me on the shoulder and said whassup?
And then you proceded to pawn the radical notion that a Christian can espouse the belief in the "fundamental right" of a mother to kill her child in utero.
Ask your daddy who's lying about this one?
Then you claimed that "capitalism" has caused this financial crisis. This is nonsensical. It's nonsensical because an organic system of interaction that lets flow and allows to amass individual credibility, i.e. intangible capital, is what it is. And when it is tampered with by external forces that limit the flow and amassing of capital, i.e. credibility, the system gets sick. It gets sick because in a world ordained by God, it is our natural inclination to seek credibility, i.e. intangible capital. Those who seek to limit this are those who are seeking to undermine the credibility in capitalism.
You can ask your daddy about that one too!
But the common thread is self-evident. Your beliefs are those of the garden-variety liberal. Yet, you act as if you aren't even sure what a liberal is... And that's so liberal too!
Maybe it's like what Jack Nicholson through a character in a movie: "You want truth? You can't handle the truth!"
Maybe we can't handle the truth that we're a declining empire, a violence nation with gun violence surpassing all European or western nations combined and we still sell guns without gun checks and gun shows; a nation whose economy will never be back to where it once was or should be...
As a nation, are we really ready to hear the truth like Gina over at What About Our Daughters blog, what the brothers are putting down over at Black Agenda Report, or, frankly, you?
Or how about the truth from magazines such as The Nation and The Progressives? I don't think so. I don't think American can handle the truth.
You might be right Mac Daddy.
Big Man...glad to see that even though we were on mind-meld again, we took slightly different tacks on this topic.
BTW, the "is it real or is it memorex" goes back to my childhood (and maybe teen years) and possibly before (I'm 41, incidentally, for context). It was with regard to Memorax cassette tapes (and later VHS tapes)...with the whole idea being that Memorex brand was so good you couldn't tell the difference between the recording and real life.
I think the worst thing about, say, certain Norse-named nitwits is that they can bring up very good and valid points for juicy and enlightening discussion.
The problem is that they never acknowledge the worth of another's viewpoint...instead always trying to find excuses and counterarguments, no matter how slim, to avoid any admission that he or she MIGHT be wrong.
And that's makes the discussions pointless. It also makes responding to new points from such people pointless, because it's all a ruse to prevent ever thinking a thought counter to their own.
It's maddening. So much potential for discussion and so little regard for give and take with such people.
Deacon Blue,
Opinions only have value if they are actually truthful. The liberal tendency to grant opinion equal status with truth is irrational and destructive.
If you opine that the "traditional" argument for marriage is "weak" then you render your "Christianity" irrelevant and you elevate your liberalism to an irrational and destructive level.
To claim that doing what we've always done in terms of marriage (meaning, defining it as the union of man/woman) is a "weak" position only highlights the irrationality of your liberal position.
Your liberal position says that because we have never done this before (granted homosexual couples state "marriage" recognition) it is right and true.
And when you opine that you don't believe it is "right and true" because how would you know then you are left to say it is simply "equal." Meaning, you are simply asserting liberal ideology. Yet, what foundation does "liberalism" sit on that makes it a legitimate way to organize society when righteousness and truth don't matter?
And there we go, ladies and gentlemen...once again, he repeats an old argument for no purpose, and completely off topic, in a gratuitous act of self-fellatio.
I'm guessing he also loves hearing himself talk.
Deacon Blue says,
The problem is that they never acknowledge the worth of another's viewpoint...I only value viewpoints that are truthful.
Do you value viewpoints that are false?
If you make false statements then why would someone value that viewpoint? It's irrational and highly destructive.
Thordaddy, your problem is that, as near as I can recall, you have NEVER given any credence to any opinion that ran counter to your own.
You are so convinced of your total worldview that you see any argument that goes against your opinion and the way you WANT to see the world as automatically being a lie. You leave no room that you might ever be in error.
And that is arrogance. And pride. What you need to learn in life is some humility. Before God slaps you down with a force-feeding of it.
That's some friendly advice, because I still think you're a young buck who's filled with self importance and precious little restraint or actual experience/knowledge.
Deacon Blue,
Young buck...? I guess it's not surprising that a liberal would think 35 was still young.
But the problem with your analysis is that, in actuality, I've arrived at my "opinions" by considering and adopting the opinions of many others including liberals.
Your problem on the other hand is an unwillingness to recognize your liberalism and how it usurps all other beliefs if taken to its logical extreme.
For instance, when you claim that the traditional argument for marriage is "weak," what exactly are you basing this on?
What is "weak" in recognizing the man/woman union has no equal?
What is "weak" about society fostering and nurturing the fundamental union that put you in the very spot you occupy?
What is "weak" about doing something the way it's always been done if that something is right and truthful?
On the flip side...
What is right and true about claiming the "equivalence" of the man/woman union to homosexual coupling?
What is right and true about society fostering and nurturing "unions" that have no greater value than the value that is placed upon it by the individuals involved?
And what is right and true about doing something that's never been done?
Deacon, when will you recognize the destructive and irrational "principle" you stand by...? The one that is known as modern liberalism?
35, eh? I'll take your word for it. You must have the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh style of emotional, social and intellectual development then. Have thoughts, but don't let logic get in the way of them.
Tell you what, I'll stop assuming that you're the ill-mannered teen-ager you've been acting like, and you don't ever address me again or try to engage me again on this blog or anywhere else. I'll even throw in my promise to never again refer to you directly or indirectly here or anywhere else.
Let's just each pretend the other person doesn't exist, eh?
Deacon Blue,
It figures that when it's time for YOU to substantiate your liberals beliefs, you do what liberals always do... Nothing.
Instead, you pretend as if I won't give your "viewpoint" a fair shake. Just think how silly that wording is in trying to convey what you mean. Does it mean that our points of view somehow convey different truths? So because you have a viewpoint from there and I have a viewpoint from here that this somehow changes fundamental truths?
What you claim is your "viewpoint" is actually a strongly held belief. That belief being the equivalence of homosexuality to heterosexuality and all that those things entail. But this belief isn't just a personal one, but one that you seek to impose on others through state coercion. In short, you seek to use a corrupted government to push falsehoods on the masses.
It's little wonder when confonted with this reality that you refuse to have a dialogue and revert to real teenage-like behavior.
Dialogue? Look up the word sometime and realize that you don't engage in any such thing.
If I ever by some miracle see you engage in an actual dialogue with anyone in the future (give and take, listening, backing up your points with actual research/evidence every once in a while, answering challenges to your opinions with more than just a repeat of your last argument, etc.)...maybe then I'll consider talking to you.
The mature thing is for me to ignore you from now on...totally and completely. God put it on my heart to give you some advice on dealing with your pride and arrogance, which you have in adundance. To make you see that you're acting like a bully and a child and are simply gratifying your desire to beat people down.
I don't regret doing that, even though you've stuffed it right in my face. The spirit moved me, so I did what I was supposed to.
Clearly you don't want to self-reflect and rein in your ego. Now God's moving me to ignore you before I start harboring any more truly un-Christian and un-productive throughts about you.
If you ever get out of the way of the Holy Spirit, maybe you'll let some light shine out of you for once.
Deacon Blue,
How do you know that the Lord didn't want me to give you exactly what you asked for? Namely, a non-Biblical argument against homosexual "marriage."
Why aren't you wondering whether the Lord implored me to set straight someone who represents Christianity as a blogging deacon?
When you say that the argument for traditional marriage is "weak", do you not realize that you are saying that the liberal argument for homosexual "marriage" is infinitely weaker? So weak that the argument is tantamount to nothing more than homosexuals saying they want marriage recognition and you saying they should get it.
"We want and so we should get it!"
This is radical liberalism, par excellence.
And so what you call arrogance and childishness is in reality an acceptance and embrace of a truth that we don't define. This restraint on defining reality is an oppressive scenario to the radical liberal.
I, nor you, elevated the man/woman relationship to an unequaled status. Its unequal status among unions is self-evident and undeniable. The man/woman union has no equal and man had nothing to do with this inherent order.
Yet, this is exactly what liberals like yourself dispute. You assert that the homosexual union is the equivalent of the man/woman union.
You assert that the masses must reference two fundamentally different unions as the same thing and you are willing to use the force of government to propagate this falsehood. This is irrational, illogical and highly destructive. There is simply no rationale in the idea that different things must be treated as the same and/or "equal" by the society at large unless there is a truthful and righteous reason to do so. Liberalism just doesn't cut it.
The bottom line is this... Who is being truthful and who isn't?
Thordaddy, in case it isn't clear...
I saw your name...I saw my name under yours in my peripheral vision. I stopped reading at that point.
In fact, I won't be reading anything you post at any time, ever again. That way, I won't get annoyed. That way I won't get drawn into pointless discussions.
Any attempt to engage me should be considered a waste of your typing. You no longer exist to me. At all.
You no longer exist to me. At all.Ok, Deacon... Whatever you believe?
Post a Comment